People expect the candidates they elect to public office to act ethically, legally and in the best interests of the taxpayers.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen.

Take the case of then-Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, who resigned in disgrace a couple years ago as part of plea deals in a pair of criminal cases after he lied on the witness stand in a whistle-blowers’ trial about an affair with his top aide.

In the wake of that scandal and some others in the state, the Legislature has put a proposal on Tuesday’s ballot that, if passed, would amend the state constitution to ban from holding state or local elected office — through either election or appointment — those who have been convicted of certain felonies within the previous 20 years.

Proposal 2 also would prohibit such individuals from holding any public job that deals with policymaking or the control of public assets.

Sounds good, right?

No one likes the idea of someone who’s proven untrustworthy in the past in charge of the public’s purse strings. Indeed, similar rules in the state constitution already apply to state legislators. This proposal would extend the ban to other public offices statewide.

But here’s the thing. Such a ban wouldn’t have prevented the Kilpatrick debacle. He had no criminal record before taking office.

Nor, would we argue, is this proposal necessary.

We think it can be left to voters to decide the merits of candidates, even those with questionable pasts.

Voters are smart enough to decide for themselves, after looking at all of the facts, if they want to elect someone with a criminal record. We have a hard time believing someone with a truly shadowy past would get a pass in most cases.

But it could happen if voters decided the candidate had paid his debt to society, turned his life around and deserved an opportunity to serve in office.

Either way, it should be voters’ choice.

We don’t support Proposal 2, which is unnecessary and will do nothing to prevent future corruption from occurring.